User talk:333-blue/Archive 11

Taiwan Open

Hello. Could you clarify your page moves to Taiwan Open please as they are not making sense. You have redirected a link to the WTA page, but there's no mentioning of the Taiwan Open in that article. At the same time, the Taipei WTA Open seems to list the fact that the tournament is being held both now and in the past, so I don't see the issue. --Midas02 (talk) 03:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

I'm going to issue you with a 3RR warning since you have failed to answer my questions, and you continute to make a mess of the Taiwan Open pages. This means your account will be blocked if you revert these changes one more time.

I'm going to ask you once again, and for the last time, why you keep on redirecting Taiwan Open (tennis) to the WTA article. There is no mentioning of such a tournament in the WTA article, and the Taipei WTA Ladies Open is clearly stating that this is a present-day tournament. So which is the tournament you are referring to? --Midas02 (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Midas02: I said that it is the NEW TAIWAN OPEN, it IS NOT IN TAIPEI, so it SHOULDN'T REDIRECT THERE, and again, it is NEW.

Not in Taipei? Well, maybe, but it's not listed on the WTA article either, so you just can't redirect to an article that doesn't mention such a tournament. Could you please discuss it at Talk:Taipei WTA Ladies Open#Another (?) Taiwan Open where user Fyunck(click) has been making some changes? --Midas02 (talk) 02:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

This confusion may be arising because in Feb 2016 the WTA will offer a brand new International level tournament also called the Taiwan Open. A stew for wikipedia but we'll wade through it somehow. A new page will have to be created and I made suggestions at the talk page discussion. All three have and will often be referred to as the Taiwan Open. Because that will cause confusion for our readers I would have the "Taiwan Open (tennis)" page redirect simply to the disambiguation article. Then we can create a brand new article with a title of "Taiwan Open Kaohsiung" or "Taiwan International" or "Taiwan Open International." Something like that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that we can create an article named Taiwan Open (Kaohsiung). 333-blue 07:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. You might want to ask at the tennis project page if anyone has any objections. But it can always be changed later if a large group doesn't like Taiwan Open (Kaohsiung). Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I am glad that we can reach a consensus. 333-blue 08:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Utilisateur:Aboudrar.said

A tag has been placed on Utilisateur:Aboudrar.said requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

Hello, I'm Qed237. I noticed that you made a change to an article, 2015–16 Manchester City F.C. season, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Qed237 (talk) 00:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Qed237:‎ http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/matchday/league-table.html. 333-blue 04:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

We use the statto source just below the table that displays our definition (per consensus) of matchDAY, which is position at the end of the day the team played. This since there are no rounds in the English leagues as matches may get moved around. Qed237 (talk) 12:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

You should be looking at http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/matchday/league-table.html?season=2015-2016&month=DECEMBER&timelineView=date&toDate=1449964799999&tableView=CURRENT_STANDINGS Qed237 (talk) 12:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Qed237: actually, what do you think, week-end or day-end is better, see Talk:2015–16 Manchester City F.C. season#Week-end or day-end, reach a consensus? 333-blue 13:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Not much to discuss, there is already a FOOTY consensus that is used on all englsih teams as there are no rounds. Qed237 (talk) 13:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Qed237: where? Could you please explain? 333-blue 13:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I will respond at the discussion you opended, if that is okay, so other users also can see it. Qed237 (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

RfA

Hi. Thank you for your participation at RfA. You apparently may have too little experience and/or understanding of adminship to be voting objectively and your vote(s) will most likely be discounted by the closing bureaucrat(s). Please read WP:Advice for RfA voters before participating again. Happy editing. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Kudpung: I votes netural as a comment, sorry for that! 333-blue 08:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Dat GuyWiki. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Networks-baseline, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Dat GuyWiki (talk) 08:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

78.26's RFA Appreciation award

	The 78.26 RFA Appreciation award
	Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. Again, I thank you. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)